Ddi 2011 1 Space Debris Aff
US and NATO depend on space
Download 267.82 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Tracking Tracking effective now – cataloguing Weeden 09
- XT: Satellites K2 Heg Satellite systems are key to hegemony and the economy Aerospace Industries Association of America
- Satellite Extension LEO is the most desirable area for satellites The Economist 10
- Commercialization ext Debris makes space unusable – space weather, radio interference House Committee on Science and Technology 09
- Removing critical mass areas solves ESA 09
- ***Addons
- Ladislaw
- Warming leads to extinction Tickell 8
- Competitiveness Technological competitiveness is key to American hegemony
- Hegemony solves great power war – declines means conflict
US and NATO depend on space Journal of the JAPCC 10 (“Transforming Joint Air Power,” http://www.japcc.de/fileadmin/user_upload/journal/Editon_12/101026_Journal_Ed-12_web.pdf Military dependence on Space is almost absolute and, while hyperbole surrounds other capabilities and the Revolution in Military Affairs, improved space capability has definitely changed, forever, the way we operate. Paradoxically, although today’s military forces are almost totally dependent upon Space Power, they still struggle to grasp its nature and how best to apply it. There is, however, general acceptance that space technology will help provide the necessary resilience in the face of the major threats to global security, whatever they may be and from wherever they may come. Defence experts point to Space as the dominant technology development area with about 90% of current major equipment programmes assessed as being reliant on space-based capability. Arguably, the most profound effect of Space on military operations has been the development of PNT which, many assert, has helped redefine mass as a principle of war. These experts may be correct; 4 GPS-guided bombs delivered from a single platform today can achieve what 600 aircraft and 3,000 bombs could not seventy years ago. Profound movement is also evident in the area of SATCOM, where the nature of the relationship between the military and the commercial sectors is changing to reflect a new world order. Notwithstanding their special relationship with defence contractors, the military has always been wary of getting too close to the commercial sector. However, there is a now such a deep interdependence between the two that this option is not available and a change in culture is required. The military craves ownership, it likes to define operating areas, establish boundaries and impose control, but in Space this is not possible. Consequently the imperative is to closely partner and share with those who were previously kept at arm’s length. Without such relationships, operations will be severely constrained. For example, could the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan possibly maintain its operational tempo if military systems were forced to carry the 85% of traffic currently routes through commercial or private sector SATCOM? Tracking Tracking effective now – cataloguing Weeden 09 (Brian, Technical Advisor for Secure World Foundation, “Space Sustainability, to Secure and Protect,” SAT Magazine March 2009 http://www.satmagazine.com/cgi-bin/display_article.cgi?number=1415465455) A second promising service is the Satellite Orbital Conjunction Reports Assessing Threatening Encounters in Space for Geosynchronous (SOCRATES-GEO) service offered by the Center for Space Standards and Innovation (CSSI)17. Based in Colorado Springs, CSSI is a research arm of Analytical Graphics, Inc. (AGI), makers of Satellite Tool Kit (STK). SOCRATES-GEO is a partnership between CSSI and several commercial GEO providers where voluntary owner-operator positional data and maneuver schedules are provided to CSSI by the commercial partners. The CSSI analysts and software mix this information with data pulled from the U.S. military’s public satellite catalog on debris and other objects. The resulting web service gives the commercial owner-operators daily predictions of all conjunctions and access to additional resources to help make collision avoidance decisions. Recently, another important relationship was developed between CSSI and the International Scientific Optical Network (ISON). ISON is a network of 25 optical telescopes located at 18 scientific institutions across the globe19. Managed from the Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics in Moscow, ISON has the capability to track satellites in all orbital regimes and provide very accurate data. This capability was highlighted in several cases recently with the most recent example involving the now-defunct INSAT-1B. At the beginning of February 2009, INSAT-1B drifted through the SES ASTRA 1 cluster at 19.2° E longitude. SOCRATES-GEO originally warned SES ASTRA that it was predicted to pass within 108 meters of ASTRA 1F, based on public TLE data from the U.S. Air Force. However, CSSI was able to use ISON data to refine the close approach to just inside 3 kilometers. This allowed SES ASTRA to plan the appropriate avoidance maneuver, which increased the miss distance to just over 14 kilometers. On-going talks between ISON, CSSI and the commercial providers are underway to determine if and how to more fully integrate the ISON data into the SOCRATES-GEO system. The added benefit would be greatly improved accuracy on the debris and other objects without owner-operator data. While the US military does not list the accuracy for the TLEs in its public database, independent analysis puts the error for geosynchronous objects somewhere between 50 and 75 kilometers20. ISON is able to provide data in some cases down to just a few kilometers of error, making the resulting conjunction analysis vastly more accurate and useful. XT: Satellites K2 Heg Satellite systems are key to hegemony and the economy Aerospace Industries Association of America, premier trade association representing the nation's major aerospace and defense manufacturers, April 2010, “Aerospace and Defense: The Strength to Lift America” http://www.nationalaerospaceweek.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/whitepaper.pdf ACC 7/18/11 Space systems drive our nation’s competitiveness, economic growth and innovation. U.S. soldiers in the mountains of Afghanistan, farmers, bankers and emergency responders here at home all have a common reliance on a space infrastructure in orbit above the Earth. Everyday activities, taken for granted by many Americans, are supported or even driven by space systems. These systems are hidden to us and rarely noticed unless the services they provide are interrupted. However, the lack of visibility of space systems doesn’t diminish their importance — both our nation’s economy and national security are tied directly to this critical infrastructure. Communications drive today’s commerce, and space systems are a chief global conduit of our nation’s commercial and national security communications. The Internet, e-mail and wireless devices have all become the standard for businesses and recreation. Direct-to-home television and satellite radio have become standard in many American homes and automobiles. These all depend on our satellite communications systems. Similarly, the Global Positioning System, originally designed for military use, is now relied on for banking transactions, ATMs, improved agriculture, air traffic and ground transportation systems and by emergency responders. All of these applications add up to substantial economic activity. Of $214 billion in aerospace industry sales in 2007, direct space system industry sales topped $40 billion.14 Total direct and indirect global space activity for 2008 was $257 billion.15 Even harder to quantify — but no less valuable — is the impact that technology spinoffs from space activities bring to our economy. In 2009 alone, NASA entered into more than 250 agreements with private and other external entities for development of dual-use technologies.16 Space is certainly becoming more contested, congested and competitive. More than 60 nations are engaged in space efforts and tens of thousands of man-made objects orbit the Earth. In January 2007, the Chinese used a ballistic missile to destroy an aging weather satellite. This anti-satellite test demonstrated the very real ability of a foreign power to attack and destroy space assets and resulted in a dangerous debris cloud. In addition, the February 2009 collision of a commercial U.S. satellite and Russian satellite showed that space systems not only face disruption from intentional attack, but are also at risk from unintentional events in an increasingly crowded environment. Using systems developed by America’s aerospace industry, the Defense Department currently tracks more than 21,000 man-made objects in the Earth’s orbit — many of which could threaten civil and national security space systems, as well as our nation’s efforts to increase the commercial use of space.17 In such an environment, investments in rapid reconstitution, sensors, tracking, threat assessment and other space protection and situational awareness capabilities are needed to mitigate the impacts of an unexpected catastrophic space system failure. The cost and difficulty involved in developing and deploying space systems as well as the severe consequences of their loss necessitates that our nation’s space infrastructure be adequately protected. Part of ensuring robust space capabilities means that America must routinely replace and update its space infrastructure. It is highly problematic — if not infeasible — to perform maintenance or even refuel them. Space systems have limited life spans and, at today’s pace of technology, can quickly become obsolete. Critical space systems that provide missile warning, global communications, positioning, navigation and timing and weather are in need of upgrade at a time when other nations are rapidly modernizing their own space infrastructure. The United States must remain a leader in human and robotic space — a position that is perishable if not properly supported. Research aboard the International Space Station and human and robotic exploration beyond low Earth orbit must remain national priorities. These activities demonstrate global leadership, sharpen our expertise for future long-range space travel, add to our scientific knowledge and inspire our youth to pursue engineering and science disciplines. Space systems often go unnoticed in our daily lives, but their impact is very real. It is imperative that we as a nation have the right plans, strategies and budgets in place to keep our space industry competitive and our space systems, and their supporting Earth-based infrastructure, operating when we need them. It is increasingly important that the United States develop and maintain a cohesive national approach to our efforts in space — one that crosses civil agencies, the Defense Department and the intelligence community. Satellite Extension LEO is the most desirable area for satellites The Economist 10 (“Junk Science,” 7/19/10 http://www.economist.com/node/16843825?story_id=16843825) Such low-Earth orbits, or LEOs, are among the most desirable for artificial satellites. They are easy for launch rockets to get to, they allow the planet’s surface to be scanned in great detail for both military and civilian purposes, and they are close enough that even the weak signals of equipment such as satellite phones can be detected. Losing the ability to place satellites safely into LEOs would thus be a bad thing. And that is exactly what these two incidents threatened. At orbital velocity, some eight kilometres a second, even an object a centimetre across could knock a satellite out. The more bits of junk there are out there, the more likely this is to happen. And junk begets junk, as each collision creates more fragments—a phenomenon known as the Kessler syndrome, after Donald Kessler, an American physicist who postulated it in the 1970s. According to the European Space Agency (ESA) the number of collision alerts has doubled in the past decade. Nicholas Johnson, the chief scientist for orbital debris at ESA’s American equivalent, NASA, says modelling of the behaviour of space debris “most definitely confirms the effect commonly referred to as the Kessler syndrome”. Even the National Security Space Office at the Pentagon is worrying about whether a tipping-point has been reached, or soon will be. Commercialization ext Debris makes space unusable – space weather, radio interference House Committee on Science and Technology 09 (“Keeping the Space Environment Safe for Civil and Commercial Users,” 4/28/09 http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/hearings/space09/april28/pace.pdf) The irreversible accumulation of orbital debris constitutes the most obvious concern for the sustainability of space use. However, it is not the only factor and I’d like to mention two that are often overlooked: Space weather – yes, space has weather of a sort. There are geomagnetic storms from the Sun, varying energies from the Van Allen radiation belts around the Earth, ionosphere disturbances and scintillations, and geomagnetic induced currents. Coronal mass ejections from the Sun and their associated shock waves can compress the Earth’s magnetosphere and induce geomagnetic storms with effects on Earth as well as local space. Space weather cannot be controlled, but monitoring and prediction are becoming more important as humans go farther out into space and more of the global economy depends on the reliable functioning of space systems. Space weather monitoring is becoming less of a “science project” and more of an operational requirement alongside traditional weather monitoring systems in space. Radio frequency interference – there is no point in going to space if you cannot communicate home. No nation “owns” the radio frequency spectrum but all nations depend on keeping it free from interference, whether intentional or unintentional. Space‐based services are particularly vulnerable to interference because satellites in space cannot easily increase their transmitted power in the face of increased noise. Many space services are not traditional two‐way communications, but include passive monitoring, active sensing, and one‐way broadcasting. As a result, critical frequency bands require special international protection, e.g., those used for GPS, weather and climate monitoring, and satellite communications. There is growing pressure on all these bands from terrestrial commercial technologies and regulatory protections are more important than ever. In this regard, the Federal Communications Commission, in partnership with the National Telecommunications and Information Agency has an important role in protecting 3 the national security, public safety requirements, and scientific needs of federal agencies relying on space systems. Commercialization Solvency Removing critical mass areas solves ESA 09 (European Space Agency, “International Cooperation,” 2/20/09 http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Space_Debris/SEMQHL05VQF_0.html) The most effective short-term means of reducing the space debris growth rate is through the prevention of in-orbit explosions. The only effective long-term means of stabilising the space debris environment at a safe level is through the removal of mass from regions with high object densities. Both types of mitigation measures need to be applied broadly and in a timely manner to avoid uncontrolled growth of the debris environment. If mitigation concepts are applied insufficiently, or too late, some orbit regions, particularly at 800- to 1400-km altitude, may experience a collisional cascading process that could render these regions too dangerous for space activities within a few decades. ***Addons Warming
James A. Lewis, senior fellow and director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at CSIS, where he focuses on technology, national security, and the international economy, Sarah. O. Ladislaw, senior fellow in the Energy and National Security Program at CSIS, and Denise E. Zheng, June 2010 (“Earth Observation for Climate Change,” pg. VIII-IX http://csis.org/files/publication/100608_Lewis_EarthObservation_WEB.pdf) This is a question of priorities. Manned flight should remain a priority, but not the first priority. Earth observation data is critical to understanding the causes and effects of climate change and quantifying changing conditions in the environment. The paucity of satellites actually designed and in orbit to measure climate change is disturbing. The United States does not have a robust climate-monitoring infrastructure. In fact, the current infrastructure is in decline. Until that decline is reversed and an adequate space infrastructure put in place, building and launching satellites specifically designed for monitoring climate change should be the first priority for civil space spending. Manned spaceflight provides prestige, but Earth observation is crucial for security and economic well-being. The United States should continue to fund as a priority a more robust and adequate space infrastructure to measure climate change, building and orbiting satellites specifically designed to carry advanced sensors for such monitoring. Satellites provide globally consistent observations and the means to make simultaneous observations of diverse measurements that are essential for climate studies. They supply high-accuracy global observations of the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface that cannot be acquired by any other method. Satellite instruments supply accurate measurements on a near-daily basis for long periods and across broad geographic regions. They can reveal global patterns that ground or air sensors would be unable to detect—as in the case of data from NASA satellites that showed us the amount of pollution arriving in North America from Asia as equal to 15 percent of local emissions of the United States and Canada. This sort of data is crucial to effective management of emissions— the United States, for example, could put in place regulations to decrease emissions and find them neutralized by pollution from other regions.15 Satellites allow us to monitor the pattern of ice-sheet thickening and thinning. While Arctic ice once increased a few centimeters every year, it now melts at a rate of more than one meter annually. This knowledge would not exist without satellite laser altimetry from NASA’s ICESat satellite.16 Satellite observations serve an indispensable role—they have provided unprecedented knowledge of inaccessible regions. Of the 44 essential climate variables (ECV) recognized as necessary to support the needs of the parties to the UNFCCC for the purposes of the Convention, 26 depend on satellite observations. But deployments of new and replacement satellites have not kept pace with the termination of older systems. Innovation and investment in Earth observation technology have failed to keep pace with global needs for monitoring and verification. Much of our data comes from satellites put in orbit for other purposes, such as weather prediction and monitoring. The sensors on these weather satellites provide valuable data, but they are not optimized for monitoring climate change or for adequately assessing the effect of mitigation efforts. More precise and specialized data are needed to understand and predict climate change, and getting these data will require new orbital sensors. Countries have improved many of their climate observation capabilities, but reports suggest little progress in ensuring long-term continuity for several important observing systems. The bulkof climate data is collected by the United States, and NASA’s investment in the Earth Observing System missions has provided the climate-quality data used to establish trends in sea level, ozone concentrations, ocean color, solar irradiance, Earth’s energy balance, and other key variables. While this investment has made an invaluable contribution, it is not an operational system. Many satellites currently in orbit are operating well past their planned lifetimes. In the next eight years, half of the world’s Earth observation satellites will be past their useful life. One reason for this is that many of the satellites that provide critical data for monitoring climate change are experimental satellites (such as TRMM—the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission). Satellites built as research efforts provide real benefit, but if they are not replaced when their service life ends and if a permanent operational capability for Earth observation is not put in place, we will face insurmountable problems for observing capabilities and our ability to manage climate change. Warming leads to extinction Tickell 8, (Oliver, Oxford University, journalist, environmental researcher and activist specializing in global warming 8/11, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange) We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from the American Association for the Advacement of Science] told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King [Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford], who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth. Competitiveness Technological competitiveness is key to American hegemony Adam Segal, Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, “Is America Losing Its Edge?,” November/December 2004, Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html?mode=print Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.
Zalmay Khalilzad, Former US ambassador, former Professor @ Columbia, 2/8/11, “The Economy and National Security” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad ACC 6/22/11 We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.
Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 267.82 Kb. Share with your friends:
|